The UN Global Compact: The Challenge and the Promise

Glass Houses? Market Reactions to Firms Joining the UN Global Compact

“…Returning to the Kasky vs. Nike case, this appears to be a case of interpretation, not false representation. Williams (2005) also notes that the US firms were more likely to be sanctioned for operating in South Africa than European firms, even if they were adhering to the Sullivan Principles and the European counterparts were not.…”

“…It appears, however, this will be viewed as an isolated event, i.e., agreeing to the bonding process suggests the firm does not expect it will have to reveal bad news often. Williams (2005) notes that among the participants of the UNGC, several firms have appeared on ''Most Admired Lists'' (e.g., BP, Nokia, BMW, etc.). This suggests that affiliation is not an attempt to ''bluewash'' a reputation.…”

“…Joining the UNGC then, might place firms in a position where critics fault the firm's practices as inconsistent with the 10 principles. As Williams (2005) notes, a few US-based firms view the Global Compact as a contract, from which deviations are now subject to litigation. Because expectations of multinational firms have been fluid, there are concerns about the degree to which multinationals are responsible on issues such as health care in developing countries.…”

“…Kell (2005) argues that active intentionality toward the 10 principles makes a good business case for multinational firms wanting to mitigate the risk of foreign engagement. Annan suggests that efforts to improve the world in light of the 10 principles would decrease the threats of terrorism and related concerns for most businesses operating overseas (Williams, 2005). Implicit in both works is the benefit for firms to disclose their shared interests in these ideals, ideals widely held overseas.…”

Corporations as Political Actors – A Report on the First Swiss Master Class in Corporate Social Responsibility

“…These standards help corporations to be answerable for the consequences of their actions by assessing and communicating their activities and impacts on social and environmental issues relevant to stakeholders (Belal, 2002;Crane and Matten, 2004). Although scholars have described the basic characteristics of these standards (Göbbels and Jonker, 2003;Leipziger, 2001Leipziger, , 2003McIntosh et al, 2003;Williams, 2004), we conspicuously lack a model (a) to enable those groups who are interested in standards (e.g., managers, NGO representatives) to discuss their characteristics and (b) to give these groups a yardstick to evaluate standardsÕ strengths and weaknesses.…”